(Note: Everything mentioned in this post is in regards to User vs CPU play only)
It's a genuine question, not rhetorical.
I ask because of what happened in the gif I created below while watching my roommate play Madden. In it, he runs a toss play, finds daylight, trucks the first tackle attempt; and after stealing that poor safeties' soul, picks up additional yards before finally being tackled.
Now, the part in this gif that irks me, and what I'd like you to focus on yourself when watching, is how fluid this entire play was from start to finish and how that TB trigger killed the flow of what would have otherwise been a really nice looking run:
Aside from the LG's lapse in awareness, everything is flowing smoothly. The OL's picking up their blocks correctly. The animations are looking smooth. It's not a jumbled up mess of blockers/defenders at the line. The truck was smooth.
Why, I ask, at that particular moment during the run, was it so important for a TB to trigger and ruin the flow?
This is just one of many times they kill the visual flow of the game because they happen constantly; and worse, there's no rhyme or reason behind them triggering. I could even make the argument that, aside from ruining the visual aspect, the randomness combined with the high frequency in which they occur is also hampering user control as well.
Here's another non-rhetorical: how many times have you been coming up on a defender and you're prepping to execute a ball-carrier move but juuust at the exact moment you're pressing the button (or direction of the right stick if juking/trucking) to pull off the move, a TB triggers; causing you to incorrectly hit the corresponding TB button prompt, thus losing the "battle"?
It's been explained by many that Tackle Battles are there to give more control to users in User vs User play... but can one not make the argument -- based on the example in the last paragraph -- that Tackle Battles are, in fact, taking away from the User's control in a sense?
Hypothetical example:
Outside zone run. Your lineman is engaged w/ the DE and you're headed to the outside to try and get around them. You make up your mind beforehand that if the DE sheds the block just as you get there, you're going to attempt a stiff arm. Whether the stiff arm attempt is successful or not is a moot point. If it works, perfect. If it fails, that's fine too. You just want to be prepared to try something in the event the DE sheds at the point of attack.
So you're running to the outside, and just as you're reaching your engaged blocker/DE, the end sheds the block and he's right in your face... but that's okay, though, because you anticipated this and have a stiff arm on standby for an emergency last ditch effort of making a play to stay alive.
As soon as you're pressing X (PS4) to attempt a stiff arm, a TB prompt triggers telling you to press Triangle. You've already pressed X instead when attempting said stiff arm -- so it's flagged as an incorrect button press, promptly causing you to lose a battle you never had a chance of winning because it was over before you were even aware you were in one to begin with. That's taking control away, not adding to it.
We can all agree it's a completely redundant feature. It serves no additional purpose outside of what a regular die-roll tackle attempt achieves during User vs CPU play; and the main purpose behind it "giving more user control" during User vs User play, ironically, does just the opposite. Either that, or it "gives" and "takes" control away from the user at an even enough rate to be considered a wash for that argument.
Then you have the fact that there are only ever two types of opinions on TB's:
"Tackle Battles are stupid, but they don't bother me enough to care about them either way. On. Off. Whatever."
or
"Tackle Battles are the worst feature since Vision Cone and they need to go. Or at the very least, give me an option to turn them off."
That's it. You either think it's a terrible feature, but can live with it (which is fair); or you think it's another VC-esque abomination that deserves the fate of a slow, secure deletion whilst spending the rest of eternity being infinitely overwritten in whatever Cloud Hell that heinous, morally-bankrupt codes go upon deletion (which is also fair).
Whichever side of the Cloud you sleep on, it's a unanimous conclusion by everyone that Tackle Battles suck. Not a single person is going to tell you they like Tackle Battles and think they bring additional value to the game with a straight look on their face. Or tell you they'd hate it if EA decided to take them out altogether. If they do, then they're a damn lie. Or reeeally good at delivering sarcasm.
Just kidding. They could totally be telling the truth... But I still won't believe it. And I'll still think they're a damn lie. Or reeeally good at delivering sarcasm.
So back to my original question... why are we still being forced to deal w/ Tackle Battles after 3 or more years now? If it's redundant, ironic in it's intended purpose, and zero people would miss them if they were gone -- then why have they still not given us an option to turn them off? Or just get rid of them completely?
Does anyone know if they've said anywhere before about what their plans are in the future regarding them?
It's a genuine question, not rhetorical.
I ask because of what happened in the gif I created below while watching my roommate play Madden. In it, he runs a toss play, finds daylight, trucks the first tackle attempt; and after stealing that poor safeties' soul, picks up additional yards before finally being tackled.
Now, the part in this gif that irks me, and what I'd like you to focus on yourself when watching, is how fluid this entire play was from start to finish and how that TB trigger killed the flow of what would have otherwise been a really nice looking run:
Aside from the LG's lapse in awareness, everything is flowing smoothly. The OL's picking up their blocks correctly. The animations are looking smooth. It's not a jumbled up mess of blockers/defenders at the line. The truck was smooth.
Why, I ask, at that particular moment during the run, was it so important for a TB to trigger and ruin the flow?
This is just one of many times they kill the visual flow of the game because they happen constantly; and worse, there's no rhyme or reason behind them triggering. I could even make the argument that, aside from ruining the visual aspect, the randomness combined with the high frequency in which they occur is also hampering user control as well.
Here's another non-rhetorical: how many times have you been coming up on a defender and you're prepping to execute a ball-carrier move but juuust at the exact moment you're pressing the button (or direction of the right stick if juking/trucking) to pull off the move, a TB triggers; causing you to incorrectly hit the corresponding TB button prompt, thus losing the "battle"?
It's been explained by many that Tackle Battles are there to give more control to users in User vs User play... but can one not make the argument -- based on the example in the last paragraph -- that Tackle Battles are, in fact, taking away from the User's control in a sense?
Hypothetical example:
Outside zone run. Your lineman is engaged w/ the DE and you're headed to the outside to try and get around them. You make up your mind beforehand that if the DE sheds the block just as you get there, you're going to attempt a stiff arm. Whether the stiff arm attempt is successful or not is a moot point. If it works, perfect. If it fails, that's fine too. You just want to be prepared to try something in the event the DE sheds at the point of attack.
So you're running to the outside, and just as you're reaching your engaged blocker/DE, the end sheds the block and he's right in your face... but that's okay, though, because you anticipated this and have a stiff arm on standby for an emergency last ditch effort of making a play to stay alive.
As soon as you're pressing X (PS4) to attempt a stiff arm, a TB prompt triggers telling you to press Triangle. You've already pressed X instead when attempting said stiff arm -- so it's flagged as an incorrect button press, promptly causing you to lose a battle you never had a chance of winning because it was over before you were even aware you were in one to begin with. That's taking control away, not adding to it.
We can all agree it's a completely redundant feature. It serves no additional purpose outside of what a regular die-roll tackle attempt achieves during User vs CPU play; and the main purpose behind it "giving more user control" during User vs User play, ironically, does just the opposite. Either that, or it "gives" and "takes" control away from the user at an even enough rate to be considered a wash for that argument.
Then you have the fact that there are only ever two types of opinions on TB's:
"Tackle Battles are stupid, but they don't bother me enough to care about them either way. On. Off. Whatever."
or
"Tackle Battles are the worst feature since Vision Cone and they need to go. Or at the very least, give me an option to turn them off."
That's it. You either think it's a terrible feature, but can live with it (which is fair); or you think it's another VC-esque abomination that deserves the fate of a slow, secure deletion whilst spending the rest of eternity being infinitely overwritten in whatever Cloud Hell that heinous, morally-bankrupt codes go upon deletion (which is also fair).
Whichever side of the Cloud you sleep on, it's a unanimous conclusion by everyone that Tackle Battles suck. Not a single person is going to tell you they like Tackle Battles and think they bring additional value to the game with a straight look on their face. Or tell you they'd hate it if EA decided to take them out altogether. If they do, then they're a damn lie. Or reeeally good at delivering sarcasm.
Just kidding. They could totally be telling the truth... But I still won't believe it. And I'll still think they're a damn lie. Or reeeally good at delivering sarcasm.
So back to my original question... why are we still being forced to deal w/ Tackle Battles after 3 or more years now? If it's redundant, ironic in it's intended purpose, and zero people would miss them if they were gone -- then why have they still not given us an option to turn them off? Or just get rid of them completely?
Does anyone know if they've said anywhere before about what their plans are in the future regarding them?
Comment